Point of Law: Entitlement of retiral benefits - Counting of the periods of work-charged service and suspension, as qualifying service, shall make the total service of the petitioner as 20 years, which shall entitle him for pension.

JUDGMENT :

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“In the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: -

(i) Set aside Letter No. TPDDL/HR-ES/2020-21/201 dated 05-3-2021 passed by respondent thereby denying post retiral benefits to the petitioner holding the same to unlawful and illegal.

(ii) Issue further writ/order or direction to the respondent thereby directing the respondent to provide all post retiral benefits to the petitioner including medical and pension etc.

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The respondents in this petition are Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. and DVB Pension Trust, in terms of the amended memo of parties filed by the petitioner.

3. The challenge of the petitioner in this petition is primarily to the Order dated March 05, 2021 whereby the request of the petitioner for correction and updation of his service records and allowing consequential retiral benefits including pension and medical facilities was rejected, primarily on the ground that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement in the year 2003/2004 and also that the service of the petitioner fall short of minimum requisite qualifying period of 20 years and therefore, he is not entitled to the pensionary and medical benefits.

4. Some of the facts as highlighted by Mr. Amit Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner are that, the petitioner joined the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (‘DESU’, for short) on May 03, 1982 as a Work / CP Pump Operator. While working on the said post, he applied against the departmental vacancy for the post of Instrument Repairer and Tester on January 28, 1983.

5. Between June 2001 to February 2002, the petitioner was put under suspension for a period of 257 days; he was later reinstated with all past benefits. According to Mr. Sahni, on July 01, 2002 the successor Company of the DESU, i.e., Delhi Vidyut Board was unbundled into six successor companies, which included North Delhi Power Ltd. The services of the petitioner came under the employment of North Delhi Power Ltd. Later, on the formation of Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (‘TPDDL’, for short), a joint venture between the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Tata Power Company Ltd., which holds a 51% majority stake in the venture.

6. On November 29, 2003, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced by the erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd. with a clear stipulation that any regular employee of North Delhi Power Ltd. who has completed ten years of service or reached the age of 40 years on the date of introduction of the Scheme may seek voluntary retirement under the said Scheme by making a request to the Competent Authority. The petitioner had applied under the said Scheme for voluntary retirement. The request of the petitioner was accepted and he was accordingly retired on January 31, 2004.

7. It is noted that retiral benefits were denied to the petitioner on the ground that he had only put in 18 years, 11 months and 3 days of service. This stand of the respondents is contested by Mr. Sahni on the ground that the respondents have excluded the following periods of service: -

(i) the period of work charged service (240 days in the present case)

(ii) extraordinary leave without pay (508 days in the present case) and

(iii) the period of suspension (dies non) (257 days in the present case)

8. It is his submission that the period of suspension which was treated as dies non (257 days) has never been communicated to the petitioner and no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in that regard. Hence, the said period need to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service. Further, he stated that if the benefits as sought for by the petitioner in this case are granted, the